tristanj

15 ms·

301.
by tristanj 5mo ago
What 50% float rule? S&P only requires 10% minimum float for index inclusion. And while SpaceX is IPOing with 4% float, after the 6 months lockup many more shares will release and float will increase to 40-50%. So after 12 months, Space
302.
by tristanj 5mo ago
Your time is better spent reading up and understanding the definition of fraud, rather than typing up hypothetical stories of what you imagine fraud is. Fraud is: * an intentional misrepresentation of fact, whether by words or conduct, by f
303.
by tristanj 5mo ago
Float will be 40-50% after lockups expire later this year.
304.
by tristanj 5mo ago
The contract has an exit clause, either side can terminate the agreement with 90 days notice. I do not expect this contract to last the full 3-year term. And this deal protects Google's investment. Google owns close to $100 billion of
305.
by tristanj 5mo ago
Because the fundamental purpose of an index is to track the stock market. The S&P 500 benchmark was created in 1957 to benchmark the US stock market, decades before the first investment funds that copy it (by Vanguard, in 1976). The pri
306.
by tristanj 5mo ago
Because Google owns a sizable stake of SpaceX, and for every $1 they give SpaceX they get $5 in investment return.
307.
by tristanj 5mo ago
No it is not. You are conflating the colloquial definition of fraud, with the legal definition of fraud. Fraud has a defined meaning.
308.
by tristanj 5mo ago
No. The definition of fraud is "lying for financial gain". This doesn't qualify.
309.
by tristanj 5mo ago
It's covered by the interstate commerce clause.
310.
by tristanj 5mo ago
Sure it might not stay at 94x. But as long as SpaceX trades above 20x revenue, Google makes money from this deal. And the bigger play is this deal pushes SpaceX over the finish line for S&P 500 inclusion. That's worth tens of billi
311.
by tristanj 5mo ago
This is a masterful piece of financial engineering by Google and SpaceX. Google purchased 10% of SpaceX over a decade ago. After dilution they probably own around 5%. SpaceX is valued at a whopping 94x revenue. This deal increases SpaceX&#x
312.
by tristanj 5mo ago
Thanks for entirely missing the point. My argument is for benchmark purity, and to not exclude significant parts of the market from the benchmark to accommodate the whims of passive investors. The benchmark has much more use than just a lis
313.
by tristanj 5mo ago
Grok has access to the X firehouse, and gives context on realtime events much better than the models you listed. I wish Meta made their own AI/search model because they probably have the best data source.
314.
by tristanj 5mo ago
Grok is the best for researching recent events and real-time information. All the other AIs have a learning date cut-off too far in the past. Claude accuses me of hallucinating events that happened the day before, and it's quite annoyi
315.
by tristanj 5mo ago
Yes they should be profitable. If SpaceX maintains profitability for 12 months, they are eligible for SP 500 index inclusion, even under the old rules Elon is pulling financial engineering black magic to make this happen.
316.
by tristanj 5mo ago
The reasoning here is backwards, because the rules in their current form exclude all three of the major upcoming IPOs of civilization changing companies (spacex, anthropic, openai). These companies are all large-caps, are currently in the t
317.
by tristanj 5mo ago
Yes, because that number increases to 1-2% of the index after the IPO lockup period ends. There are three IPOs coming this year that meet this criteria.
318.
by tristanj 5mo ago
No, because after lockups expire in 6 months, SpaceX float would increase to 40-50% and it's float-adjusted weight would be >1% of S&P. This is assuming share prices remain unchanged, when they could go either way. SpaceX at its
319.
by tristanj 5mo ago
Even assuming a post-IPO valuation drop by 50%, SpaceX would still be a top-25 US company by market cap. Your "wait and see" argument doesn't apply, because (SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI) are excluded from the index for profitab
320.
by tristanj 5mo ago
But that wasn't going to happen with the S&P 500, the proposal was to reduce inclusion time from 12 months to 6 months, and this did not pass. 6 months is more than enough time for price discovery to occur. And even if it was added
321.
by tristanj 5mo ago
That's a fair point that the inclusion criteria are applied consistently, not arbitrarily. But I fundamentally disagree with their inclusion criteria. It was designed for traditional companies with low growth and high GAAP profitabilit
322.
by tristanj 5mo ago
You are confused what the S&P 500 actually is. It is a benchmark, not a managed fund. Investment funds that track the S&P 500 do not have a say on which stocks to buy. They copy what the index allocates. Whether these companies allo
323.
by tristanj 5mo ago
The "total market index" point has been addressed twice now. Nobody ever claimed the S&P 500 tracks all equities. Only you keep bringing it up. On your claim that these companies "wouldn't be in the top 20 by weight&
324.
by tristanj 5mo ago
> retirement funds would automatically buy into the IPO after 15 days This is a misrepresentation of the rule change. The proposed S&P500 rule change was to decrease S&P inclusion time from 12 months to 6 months, not to 15 day
325.
by tristanj 5mo ago
The issue is a contradiction with what S&P 500 claims to do vs what they actually do. S&P 500 claims to be the "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities". But if they exclude high-growth no-profit large-cap equities su
326.
by tristanj 5mo ago
It meant that during this time, the S&P 500 index less accurately tracked the large-cap U.S. market.
327.
by tristanj 5mo ago
The S&P 500 is primarily a benchmark index, not a list of approved stocks to invest your 401k into. The GP is conflating the two. GP is claiming there's a subset of stocks that people don't want to invest in, and these should
328.
by tristanj 5mo ago
The core issue is that S&P requires companies to be profitable for 12-months to get included in the index. Yet all of SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic are highly unprofitable, because they are prioritizing investing all free-cash-flow into
329.
by tristanj 5mo ago
I completely agree. People have parroted the benefits of passive investing and blindly following the benchmark index for decades, yet the instant some overpriced turds (Anthropic, OpenAI, and SpaceX) are considered being adding to the bench
330.
by tristanj 5mo ago
Per the S&P 500 website, the claimed subset of the market is "U.S. large-cap equities". S&P claims their index is "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities". But, it's clear that given the current iterat

More ›